Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Mon, 11 Apr 2022 14:19:30 +0200
From:   Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc:     Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>,
        Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, alex.williamson@redhat.com,
        cohuck@redhat.com, farman@linux.ibm.com, pmorel@linux.ibm.com,
        borntraeger@linux.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
        gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com, agordeev@linux.ibm.com,
        svens@linux.ibm.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com,
        imbrenda@linux.ibm.com, vneethv@linux.ibm.com,
        oberpar@linux.ibm.com, freude@linux.ibm.com, thuth@redhat.com,
        pasic@linux.ibm.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 14/21] KVM: s390: pci: provide routines for
 enabling/disabling interrupt forwarding
Message-ID: <YlQc0ulxVq+k1Fub@osiris>
References: <20220404174349.58530-1-mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>
 <20220404174349.58530-15-mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>
 <9a551f04c3878ecb3a26fed6aff2834fbfe41f18.camel@linux.ibm.com>
 <20220408124824.GZ64706@ziepe.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220408124824.GZ64706@ziepe.ca>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 09:48:24AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 03:39:19PM +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> > On Mon, 2022-04-04 at 13:43 -0400, Matthew Rosato wrote:
> > > +	struct zpci_fib fib = {};
> > 
> > Hmm this one uses '{}' as initializer while all current callers of
> > zpci_mod_fc() use '{0}'. As far as I know the empty braces are a GNU
> > extension so should work for the kernel but for consistency I'd go with
> > '{0}' or possibly '{.foo = bar, ...}' where that is more readable.
> > There too uninitialized fields will be set to 0. Unless of course there
> > is a conflicting KVM convention that I don't know about.
> 
> {} is not a GNU extension, it is the preferred way to write it.
> 
> The standard has a weird distinction between {} and {0} that results
> in different behavior.

Whoever cares: details are described in "6.7.8 Initialization" within
the C standard.